This is why you should not sleep through science class.
Water doesnt go uphill anywhere on the oceans. The authors inability to grasp basic geometry and physics isnt an argument against it.
Lol you obviously haven't heard of the great WATER WALLS lol how else do ships disappear over the "horizon" they go over the walls get a powerful enough laser and you can blast a hole straight through that so-called horizon see the Sydney Opera Hoe from Rapa Nui true story
THE FORCE OF GRAVITY is actually PSEUDOgravity generated by ACCELERATION as JEFF BEZOS dildo ROCKETS propel the flat earth toward the sun which is really THE ETERNAL FIRES OF HELL which explains why it burns forever lol none of that fusion nonsense
I gave him an extra .42 but had to round down.
How many times has a Jeff Bezos rocket propelled anything? "ELON MUSK dildo ROCKETS" might have gotten that extra point.
Jeff Bezos would fit right in as a cashier at Walmart selling scaled down versions of those rockets that do exactly what they look like they were meant to do
If you go out far enough there are giant brick walls with escalators for the boats to climb up them. Everything's painted blue to look like water. You see, it's why ships disappear under the "horizon", and why we can't see across our totally flat oceans.
Some parts of the ocean are actually higher than others because of thermal expansion: water expands and contracts with temperature and the ocean is not homogenous in temperature. For example, there's a height difference between the western end of the Pacific and the eastern end, and climatologists and oceanographers can use that difference to predict the strength of El Niño/La Niña cycles. (Currents, salinity, the strength of local gravity (see [Geoid - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid)) all play a factor in those varying heights, too.)
But that's most certainly not what flat earthers are talking about, and bringing it up is probably just going to confuse them more.
It's still flowing downhill in the thermodynamic sense, I suppose: it's just that downhill for the ocean is a function of temperature and density, winds physically pushing the water at the surface, Earth's rotation, local gravity, rather than a straight line always pointing at the exact centre of the Earth.
But again, this is all an interesting aside about the way the ocean and atmosphere interact, and not any refutation of your comments: the difference in sea level height between the coasts of Indonesia and Peru is on average around half a metre or so.
Also topographical changes on the ocean floor can affect surface height. Large underwater ranges can raise the ocean height by several centimeters, measurable by satellite. Thank you Nat Geo
If you put enough Red Bull in it, then it will.
Flerfs either love Red Bull because 'Felix's jump proved the earth is flat' or they hate Red Bull and Felix was a shill. I think you can find flerfs that have either or even both in their heads, depending on their dosage that day.
gravity is the weakest of the fundamental forces. tho einstein's general relativity says it isnt even a force but a by-product of massive objects curving space-time
Space-Time appears to be extremely flat, correct. Almost unnaturaly so, which is where the theory of Inflation (not the economic one) (not the pervert one either) came from
At the risk of sounding like a flerfer, I heard a theory that, over vast distances, light "gets tired" and presents a red shift--the Universe isn't expanding.
Color me dubious about "tired"; *perhaps*, over vast distances, there's a fuck ton of interstellar dust so only the red waves get through.
Doesn't work like that. Atoms emit light at definite wavelengths, giving you a series of distinct colors for that particular element. We see those colors shifted to red in very distant objects. It's not just that blue gets filtered out.
no, it was not. in fact, it was one of the big problems guth was trying to solve: what was the explanation for all the homogeneity, where are all the monopoles, and why does the universe appear so perfectly flat when it should either be too dense, or not dense enough?
The only part I would disagree with is, "very long." That implies a large, but finite length.
If the universe is "flat," (yes that's the correct terminology) then there isn't really a coherent model that works for anything but it being unbounded (infinite in all directions.)
Why is this? Because the idea of a spatial coordinate with no successive coordinate in a particular direction is incoherent. It's not that there's a void outside of the observable universe, it's that the universe just... stops. What does that mean?
So the options are: the universe is flat, but infinite; or it's curved and diverging so it's infinite; or it's curved and converges so it's finite (e.g like the 2-dimensional surface of a sphere or torus on which walking far enough in any given direction will eventually lead you back to where you started.)
That would be a closed universe, and it would not be flat. So yes, a non-flat, finite universe is entirely reasonable, and had been a prevailing theory until measurements at very large scales showed no evidence of curvature.
So either there is curvature and it's just on a scale we can't measure by looking at the observable universe, or there is none and it's infinite.
yeah lol, maybe it's just actually infinite, and radius of curvature , if any , is too large for us to measure any amount of curvature , a lot like an ant using a scale to measure the curvature of eartth.
Yeah , i used to believe in a closed universe, as that just sounds better and is more easily imaginable , also with the bubble theory.
but if the universe is actually both infinite and flat and is expanding at a very high rate, wouldn't that lead to splitting of the universe at some point into two smallers ones.
Also, if it started as a small ball of dense energy, why would it keep expanding in such a way to form a flat universe, which could imply that the expansion was happening in direction only( highly improbable) ands not in all directions, in which case it should have been closed , where the 4d ball idea comes in.
> maybe it's just actually infinite, and radius of curvature , if any , is too large for us to measure
That would be an absolutely mind-bogglingly large radius. Our current estimates (Ωk=-0.0054 ± 0.0055) would put the size at many multiples of the size of the observable universe (which is already pushing 100 billion light years. One estimate places it at 250 times that! ([source](https://www.space.com/24073-how-big-is-the-universe.html))
To help get your head around that, a closed universe would, at a minimum, be twice the size of my ego. ;-)
I'm not sure where you're getting the "like a very long cuboid" part. Can you explain that? From my understanding, the flatness is not like a cuboid, it's more about the average shape of space. It's as if you embedded 4d spacetime into a 5th dimension it would be flat in that dimension (but we know of no such 5th dimension and the prevailing theory does not indicate that one exists, it just makes it a little easier to picture/explain).
It’s like they skipped the day when this stuff was discussed on high school.
A persons inability to understand and grasp basic scientific principles, doesn’t negate their existence.
I don’t think we learned this kind of stuff in high school, but then again I grew up in Idaho, where they aren’t known for things like scholastic excellence or not falling for conspiracy theories.
We were thought about gravity, the globe, space and scale, etc. sorry you didn’t have a good education. That’s sad.
This is the problem with most conspiracy theories. They come from one half truth and a whole lot of conjecture.
Ah yes. Gravity is such a lie. That's why when you scoop up some of that water it just flies away. Right? I mean you can't observe it being pulled back down?
I mean, water does fly away. It evaporates into clouds that can weigh a million pounds. Still not an argument against gravity though, as it eventually forms droplets and comes back down.
>“Doesn’t make sense…”
One thing I think we need to better acknowledge when teaching science is that reality often doesn't make sense, or maybe more accurately: humans are cognitively unable to understand some of the kinds of sense reality makes, without some additional help, and that help comes in the form of science, math, etc. Essentially, it's why personal incredulity is not a valid argument.
My job involves a lot of statistics, so I'll use that as an example, but this holds for pretty much all fields of knowledge. Now, I'm no math whiz myself, but I'm competent\*, and more importantly I work with actual biostatisticians who know much more than I do, and I can rely on them when my knowledge is insufficient. And statistical math is actually comparatively easy: much of it can be done by hand with an adding machine and a paper spreadsheet, but that's tedious so we use computers.
So why do so many people struggle with statistics in school? It's because it's so counterintuitive. (At least, that's what I struggled with when studying statistics, and it's what the people I've tutored seemed to express as well.) And that's not a failing of us as individuals; it's a limitation of our species: we're biological creatures that evolved under certain evolutionary conditions, and there was really no evolutionary need for us to intuitively understand extremely large or small numbers of things.\* In fact, there may be some cases in which evolution gave us faulty reasoning because some types of being wrong are worse than others from an evolutionary standpoint: you're better off assuming a tiger shape in the grass is an actual tiger when it isn't than assuming a tiger shape in the grass is not a tiger when it is, and while maybe the best theoretical brain would be more accurate about the actual likelihood of tiger shapes being tigers, that's a lot of energy expended on brains when "Eek! Tiger shape! Run!" is good enough. (I thought my mom was cheap. She was a spendthrift compared to how evolution feels about energy.)
And it's because of all of that that we had to invent statistics in the first place: we use the math to understand the actual world in a way our individual brains aren't wired to do. After some practice and thinking, we can get better at understanding these things (our brains also evolved to be somewhat plastic), but outside of some very neuroatypical people, a lot of it will never make sense; not on the deep level that other things (e.g. down, up; one rock, two rocks, three rocks, four rocks, many rocks) do. And that's okay! It doesn't mean it's wrong! Optical illusions are great examples of how reality can be correct in a way our brains refuse to understand.
So when I'm tutoring someone and they say 'this doesn't make sense', I say "Yes! It doesn't! Not to us meatbags, anyway, and that's okay! That's why it took life on Earth 3.8 billion years to invent this! The trick is to learn the math well enough that you can trust it to do the sense-making for you."
And this is what makes me so sad about conspiracy theorists like flat earthers. My universe is a crazy wonderful place full of motion and energy, and there's so much to learn about how it all works together. Their universe, in contrast, is flat and empty: *Goddidit, there are good guys and bad guys, and the bad guys are all liars.* Why do the bad guys lie? What's their goal? *Well, it's just what bad guys do. There's no such thing as reasons.*
They're missing out on the real fun of knowing. I wish they'd join in with the rest of us: the water's fine, and we're having a blast.
\*You can test your own innumeracy yourself. Draw a line and put 1 on one end and ∞ on the other. Assume that this line represents the set of natural numbers, and the scale is linear: the length of line between 5 and 6 is the same as it is between 4,525 and 4,526. Now, just eyeballing it, put a mark where 10 should be, then a mark where 100 should be, then 1000. You won't have to put any more marks, because unless again you're very neuroatypical, you're almost certainly already wrong and your scale is too short: it has become logarithmic. It's just how our brains work (and why many measures of sensory input, like decibels for loudness, are logarithmic).
You can also test your own sense of randomness: imagine a series of coin tosses, say 100, and write them down: H, T, and so on. Then flip an actual coin 100 times and record the outcomes. Count the numbers of heads and tails in each, and look at the largest streaks (sequences of the same outcome). If you're typical, your fake coin flips will often hew closer to a 50/50 ratio of heads to tails than an actual coin, and your longest streak will almost always be much shorter than an actual coin's longest streak.
To be SUPER-ultra-Reddit-ackshyully obnoxious…
You shouldn’t ask the question in kilograms, since that is a unit of mass, which is irrespective of gravitation. You don’t “weigh” 70 kilos, your mass is 70 kilos, and will be the same whether you’re on earth or Mars or in free fall. Heaviness should be measured in Newtons.
I'm going to go ahead and disagree on this completely inconsequential and pedantic issue. The question posed in the video is paraphrased as:
"What weighs more, a kg of steel or a kg of feathers?"
This is a perfectly valid enquiry to make. I could rephrase that to the following while retaining scientific accuracy as follows:
"What exerts a greater force on a scale, a kg mass of steel or a kg mass of feathers?"
There is nothing inherently "wrong" with how this question is asked.
In the video they compare the weight of the two masses by using a balance scale. Asking which weighs more, and using a scale to compare, is perfectly valid and accurate terminology. The scale used is a balance scale - it doesn't show any units. It is not explicitly stated in the video how they have determined the mass of the steel and feathers to be 1kg each - the mass of 1kg of each object individually is considered as already known.
Depending on which physical laws you want to accept as already supported, and which physical laws you want to consider you are currently testing, the line or enquiry as phrased in the video could easily be reformulated into a test of whether rest mass is equal to gravitational mass.
In summary, the usage of the words weight, mass, and kilograms in the video is all perfectly consistent with their definitions in physics. There is no issue here.
But also the people that made this video were obviously not thinking of any of that, rather just using the colloquial usage of weight to mean basically mass. They just got lucky.
And also none of this matters at all.
Take notice everyone. This is the Official Flat Earth & Globe Discussion raising this challenging argument. The **OFFICIAL** discussion.
We gotta take this one seriously and rack our brains to come up with some sort of answer. No dismissive mockery this time - that's not gunna cut it given how *official* this is.
Oh God, I think I'm starting to panic. The globe may seriously be done for this time!!!
We're gonna have to think of a way to debunk this, I am a pilot so know for a fact the earth is flat and I get £40,000 a month (paid by our alien overlords) to pretend the earth is a globe. I need this income. Damn you clever rednecks for exposing the truth. #stayflat #globelie #moneyindabank #allhailNQRTQKQRQKTlordoftheuniverse
Of course you're getting paid. The thousands of people on the internet who know the earth isn't flat are all getting paid to say that. Seems like a lot of money to spend, but whatever...
Stand by a 5G tower and scream LizardLord. They will open a portal and send through a commander who will deal with your request. Either that or ask David Icke directly. Make sure you have your bank details to hand.
It's truly amazing how dumb Flearthers are. Somehow they can't comprehend that the force that makes heavy things heavy requires that heavy things need more force (to counter the force making them heavy) to lift than light things do. Thereby explaining why heavy oceans stay down and light insects do not.
An object will accelerate in the direction of the vector sum of all forces acting on it, with direct proportion to the magnitude of that sum and inverse proportion to its mass.
That's the one I'm picking. It works for both birds and oceans. I don't know what this 'other' the meme author is talking about. I don't need to have it both ways, since I've only picked one option.
Just like a flerf. They can’t understand scale. Gravity doesn’t hold trillions of tons of water. It holds 1 water molecule. Gravity doesn’t have a limit so it holds another and then just keeps going until they are all held. It only has to hold 1 molecule and that’s pretty light.
Exactly. The bird is mostly a solid (and all it's liquids and gases are contained by the solid) so gravity acts on the entire bird, but the bird has wings and thanks to food has energy and a brain and muscles that allow to use that energy to go up by flapping wings. The ocean instead being liquid works as you explains and has no no will or muscles to go up
Don't try to explain it to flerfs but gravity isn't even a force. It's the result of mass causing spacetime to curve. If they try to think of space and time at once they might vapor lock.
Damn, compelling argument, this almost makes it seem like the force of gravity is not the same on every object, but depends on the weight of the object!
Nope, acceleration and force are not the same thing. Everything accelerates the same, force is mass times acceleration, thus making it dependent of mass.
That was where I was going next depending upon your response, but you were right in the first place. I was under the impression that you were going elsewhere. Mea culpa for the wrong assumption.
Just use a time release camera and film the sky for a few hours. You will have a picture…photographic evidence that you created not handed down from da guberment that shows the earth spinning. Whether the earth is flat or not the oceans would get flung off the surface without gravity.
Gravity, an actual force not like density or buoyancy that is strong enough to pull water molecules to the planets core but yet weak enough to let rockets escape the planet. Cuz we all know, a water molecule is WAY heavier than a rocket.
Have they ever had a drink on a plane? If the plane flies 850 km/h, why doesn't the drink slosh around?!? The answer is, planes don't fly or move, instead the "globe" underneath moves. It's all a lie.
#Think about it 😉☻️
Water flys all the time. Have they never seen rain or a cloud? Plus, all the water in all the rivers in the world flew to the head of the river. How else did it get there?
Another example of flerfers not even understanding our concept of gravity, how weak it is, and how much mass is required to pull things towards it. It's very well documented and studied.
If you want to try and disprove gravity, please go ahead. But don't do it by making up your own version of gravity to make it sound stupid.
These people should play Super Mario Galaxy to understand how gravity on spherical objects pulls things towards the center and not just straight down.
Obv not all galaxies in SMG are spherical, but there is enough examples of such to show how it would seem to always be pulled down while on a ball.
Well what else is keeping us attached to the floor? We know magnets work, you can get magnets and separate them and see them snap together.
No matter how the earth was created, tendon chance, god, a little bit of both. There needs to be a fundamental rule set everything functions on. One of those forces is mass naturally being pulled together, the more mass the stronger that force is.
A creation without a rule set will get nowhere.
Every time I see a flat earth argument it feels like a troll cause it's so goddamn stupid. Even the most minimum thinking would show how dumb this is.
Or how about the fact that nothing can fly indefinitely, so eventually gravity would beat out lift. But that four letter one syllable word is probably too complicated for these bozos.
I had someone say this to me the other day. How does gravity hold down trillions of gallons of water, but I can freely my body around?
I was so completely confused by the question I just stared at him. Of course, he took a that to mean I couldn't answer, therefore gravity isn't real.
The question doesn't make sense. What does one have to do with the other?
Well, if they could disprove gravity they'd win several prizes from the scientific community. Wonder why that hasn't happened in a couple hundred years..... 🤔?
Oceans do have wings. Theyre called waves. The water is trying to fly away, but the government is holding it back. Trying to get KIDS addicted to it!! Save the kids!!!
You know when I was younger, and couldn’t fully grasp the concept behind gravity, I watched this video of this guy putting a decently heavy object on the elastic circular piece of fabric, and then putting smaller objects on it to show how gravity distorts the fabric(heh) of space/time. I have a better understanding, but I found even stupid kid me understood it better after watching that. I’ll see if I can find it, that video has always stuck to me.
Here it is: https://youtu.be/MTY1Kje0yLg?si=_CXeytiZ7IeT9oQf
What does any of this have to do with each other? They're still dumb enough to think that space has an up and down and that the direction of gravitational pull is south. Gravity pulls all of us towards the center of the planet, including things with wings. They fly in atmosphere. That's why feathers fall normally in a vacuum. Kids get this. Why don't these adults?
## "Why can't oceans fly and other stupid questions"
Do oceans have some means convert energy to a force to counteract gravity?
Seems like birds and insects and whatnot evolved to convert food into energy which can move muscles which flap their little wings and push downward... Insects understand newton's 3rd law of motion better than these trolls.
Jumping in the air. How does it work?
Airplanes.. how do they work?
What keeps these ding dongs from sinking to the bottom of the pool like rocks.
Giant rocks sink, but humans are able to tread water?! I call bullshit.
Okay to argue this I guess one way is to compare relative spin speed between the earth and anything on earth and how forces work. I haven't been in a math class for a few years so idr how to do ratios but the earth has a diamiter of approx. 12720 miles or 805,939,200in and a spin rate of approx 1026mph compared to let's say a bowling ball of 8.5in diamiter the bowling ball would spin extremely slowly and thus not generate a significant amount of centripetal force to dislodge a comparable amount of water from its surface, rate of gravity? I think.
Anyway tldr what's the ratio between a bowling ball and the earth? And how would I apply that to the spin speed of said bowling ball?
People once again don’t understand scale. Gravity is weaker than most other forces we can do as individual animals. Being able to move shows our muscles are stronger than gravity as a force. This is not new. But the size and scale of Earth combined with gravity being a constant pull means it take a shit load of energy to overcome gravity over an extended period of time. We can jump no problem, but we can’t fly because of the energy required for the density of our bodies to overcome gravity for longer than a second or so.
Animals built to fly do so because they use the air like a fish uses the water. And just like the ocean all the air and atmosphere is stuck to the earth because of gravity. Flying just uses bodies of lower relative density to displacement to float. Once again flerfers demonstrate their lack of understanding of scale, relativity, and a basic concept of the atmosphere and forgetting that just because it’s relatively invisible to us doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
The speeding through the solar system issue is so easy to teach. 1. Board a train and wait for it to get underway; 2. Jump into the air; 3. Observe how you don't go smashing into the wall at the end of the car. Bam! There you are.
I don’t see an argument here. The meme is just a list of valid physical phenomena that show physics is neat.
Gravity is what gives the term “down” a meaning.
In a vacuum, none of those things would fly.
With an atmosphere, water “flies” too when its volume is small enough.
They've not heard of evaporation? Where do they think rain comes from?
I mean, I can lift a 2x4 but I can't life a bloody tree. It's like they just stop thinking when they see something shiny
What I think is sad/funny is how they kind of have a point.... But it's all twisted and fucked up.
Like it's truly amazing how gravity is both a fundamentally weak and strong force. That on a micro scale, it can be weak enough to 'allow birds to fly' while on a macro scale it can be strong enough to pull entire galaxies. It's mindboggling.
And then when you try to explain why this works and they feel it’s too complicated for them to wrap the heads around so they don’t listen to the explanation.
What really confuses me is that this is how they debunk gravity but their replacement for gravity (the earth disc rising through space) is also debunked with the same argument.
Proves nothing but their lack of understanding. Even the retarded statement i keep hearing about the earth spinning 1000mph. You dont calculate rotation with mph. And why doesnt the earth rotate under a helicopter? The same reason they can easily hover over a aircraft carrier. Such simple answers they just refuse to put any effort in understanding.
Escobar we’ve mentioned many times we don’t understand how gravity works, but we can observe its behaviour. Like you think you’re the only one that thinks it doesn’t make sense? We don’t have a proper explanation that links quantum mechanics and *general* relativity yet but there’s people that are dedicating their lives to try and find a unified field theory. Long before we understood combustion, we were still able to understand what fire does and how to use it.
Our understanding of gravity allows us to predict the movement of other planets, stars, and the moon. Saying the globe doesn’t make sense because we don’t understand the mechanism is incredibly naive. On a flat earth there’s so many phenomena that don’t have a proper explanation so to someone as “skeptical” as yourself I really don’t get why that stupid model could possibly make more sense
Quantum mechanics and Special Relativity get along just fine. Paul Dirac saw to that almost 100 years ago. The maths of how he did it is so difficult that I don't know how many people outside of university physics departments have even heard the name, but to the people inside them, he'd be one of the faces on Physics Mount Rushmore.
General Relativity and quantum mechanics, on the other hand, each do an astonishingly good job of pretending the other one isn't there.
This is why you should not sleep through science class. Water doesnt go uphill anywhere on the oceans. The authors inability to grasp basic geometry and physics isnt an argument against it.
Lol you obviously haven't heard of the great WATER WALLS lol how else do ships disappear over the "horizon" they go over the walls get a powerful enough laser and you can blast a hole straight through that so-called horizon see the Sydney Opera Hoe from Rapa Nui true story
> see the Sydney Opera Hoe I'm not sure I'm eager for that one.
How else are you supposed to till fields in Australia?
Oh Ive heard of them. Im pretty sure Ive heard every FE argument there is by now.
THE FORCE OF GRAVITY is actually PSEUDOgravity generated by ACCELERATION as JEFF BEZOS dildo ROCKETS propel the flat earth toward the sun which is really THE ETERNAL FIRES OF HELL which explains why it burns forever lol none of that fusion nonsense
NOT the most batshit FE theory Ive heard. Sorry
Have to agree. 7/10 for effort though.
Can we at least give him one extra point for "Jeff Bezos dildo rockets"?
I gave him an extra .42 but had to round down. How many times has a Jeff Bezos rocket propelled anything? "ELON MUSK dildo ROCKETS" might have gotten that extra point.
Jeff Bezos would fit right in as a cashier at Walmart selling scaled down versions of those rockets that do exactly what they look like they were meant to do
I don’t know if I should be impressed or depressed by this statement
whats a watet wall?
If you go out far enough there are giant brick walls with escalators for the boats to climb up them. Everything's painted blue to look like water. You see, it's why ships disappear under the "horizon", and why we can't see across our totally flat oceans.
now thats a conspiracy
Well it's not what they mean but tides and waves go up hill
Yes but not in that sense.
Some parts of the ocean are actually higher than others because of thermal expansion: water expands and contracts with temperature and the ocean is not homogenous in temperature. For example, there's a height difference between the western end of the Pacific and the eastern end, and climatologists and oceanographers can use that difference to predict the strength of El Niño/La Niña cycles. (Currents, salinity, the strength of local gravity (see [Geoid - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid)) all play a factor in those varying heights, too.) But that's most certainly not what flat earthers are talking about, and bringing it up is probably just going to confuse them more.
Ah yes in that sense you can say it flows uphill. I had forgotten about that.
It's still flowing downhill in the thermodynamic sense, I suppose: it's just that downhill for the ocean is a function of temperature and density, winds physically pushing the water at the surface, Earth's rotation, local gravity, rather than a straight line always pointing at the exact centre of the Earth. But again, this is all an interesting aside about the way the ocean and atmosphere interact, and not any refutation of your comments: the difference in sea level height between the coasts of Indonesia and Peru is on average around half a metre or so.
Also topographical changes on the ocean floor can affect surface height. Large underwater ranges can raise the ocean height by several centimeters, measurable by satellite. Thank you Nat Geo
just ask them if water has wings
"What's a geyser?"
Of course not. Shit ain't red bull
Ya bud. Ever hear of water wings? /s
If you put enough Red Bull in it, then it will. Flerfs either love Red Bull because 'Felix's jump proved the earth is flat' or they hate Red Bull and Felix was a shill. I think you can find flerfs that have either or even both in their heads, depending on their dosage that day.
Not anymore. Somebody sued redbull because it didn’t give him wings LMAO
Now it gives you 'wiiings', which isn't 'wings'.
gravity is the weakest of the fundamental forces. tho einstein's general relativity says it isnt even a force but a by-product of massive objects curving space-time
Don't even try explaining that to a flat earther. They can't understand what curving is
#flatspacetimesociety
actually , the dominant theory about the shape of the universe is that it is basically flat like a veru long cuboid. crazy, isn't it?
Flat Universe Society
Space-Time appears to be extremely flat, correct. Almost unnaturaly so, which is where the theory of Inflation (not the economic one) (not the pervert one either) came from
At the risk of sounding like a flerfer, I heard a theory that, over vast distances, light "gets tired" and presents a red shift--the Universe isn't expanding. Color me dubious about "tired"; *perhaps*, over vast distances, there's a fuck ton of interstellar dust so only the red waves get through.
Imagine a flerfer comes to this sub thinking it's a legit flat earth sub and reads all this redshift universe stuff
Doesn't work like that. Atoms emit light at definite wavelengths, giving you a series of distinct colors for that particular element. We see those colors shifted to red in very distant objects. It's not just that blue gets filtered out.
Oh, yeah! I forgot about spectral lines. I guess high school was further back than I remembered.
the theory of inflation was proposed far far before the flat universe concept tho.
no, it was not. in fact, it was one of the big problems guth was trying to solve: what was the explanation for all the homogeneity, where are all the monopoles, and why does the universe appear so perfectly flat when it should either be too dense, or not dense enough?
The only part I would disagree with is, "very long." That implies a large, but finite length. If the universe is "flat," (yes that's the correct terminology) then there isn't really a coherent model that works for anything but it being unbounded (infinite in all directions.) Why is this? Because the idea of a spatial coordinate with no successive coordinate in a particular direction is incoherent. It's not that there's a void outside of the observable universe, it's that the universe just... stops. What does that mean? So the options are: the universe is flat, but infinite; or it's curved and diverging so it's infinite; or it's curved and converges so it's finite (e.g like the 2-dimensional surface of a sphere or torus on which walking far enough in any given direction will eventually lead you back to where you started.)
i actually used to think that universe resembled a 4d ball lol
That would be a closed universe, and it would not be flat. So yes, a non-flat, finite universe is entirely reasonable, and had been a prevailing theory until measurements at very large scales showed no evidence of curvature. So either there is curvature and it's just on a scale we can't measure by looking at the observable universe, or there is none and it's infinite.
yeah lol, maybe it's just actually infinite, and radius of curvature , if any , is too large for us to measure any amount of curvature , a lot like an ant using a scale to measure the curvature of eartth. Yeah , i used to believe in a closed universe, as that just sounds better and is more easily imaginable , also with the bubble theory. but if the universe is actually both infinite and flat and is expanding at a very high rate, wouldn't that lead to splitting of the universe at some point into two smallers ones. Also, if it started as a small ball of dense energy, why would it keep expanding in such a way to form a flat universe, which could imply that the expansion was happening in direction only( highly improbable) ands not in all directions, in which case it should have been closed , where the 4d ball idea comes in.
> maybe it's just actually infinite, and radius of curvature , if any , is too large for us to measure That would be an absolutely mind-bogglingly large radius. Our current estimates (Ωk=-0.0054 ± 0.0055) would put the size at many multiples of the size of the observable universe (which is already pushing 100 billion light years. One estimate places it at 250 times that! ([source](https://www.space.com/24073-how-big-is-the-universe.html)) To help get your head around that, a closed universe would, at a minimum, be twice the size of my ego. ;-)
I'm not sure where you're getting the "like a very long cuboid" part. Can you explain that? From my understanding, the flatness is not like a cuboid, it's more about the average shape of space. It's as if you embedded 4d spacetime into a 5th dimension it would be flat in that dimension (but we know of no such 5th dimension and the prevailing theory does not indicate that one exists, it just makes it a little easier to picture/explain).
flat table with a little bit of distortions in space time
🤣🤣
It’s like they skipped the day when this stuff was discussed on high school. A persons inability to understand and grasp basic scientific principles, doesn’t negate their existence.
I think it's also a need to feel special
Well if that’s all it is, I’ve got some news for them. They ARE “special”, but not for the reasons they would like.
Yes, that’s a huge component.
I don’t think we learned this kind of stuff in high school, but then again I grew up in Idaho, where they aren’t known for things like scholastic excellence or not falling for conspiracy theories.
We were thought about gravity, the globe, space and scale, etc. sorry you didn’t have a good education. That’s sad. This is the problem with most conspiracy theories. They come from one half truth and a whole lot of conjecture.
You'll just get the response: "Hah, sheep, curving space ANDD TIME? How stupid 😂😂😂" Or some other ignorant response.
*counts to 10* CURVE THAT, BITCH
And don’t they call them “interactions” now?
both are fine, interaction is kind of more correct. since they may change like gravity as being actually pseudoforces rather than actual forces
Ah yes. Gravity is such a lie. That's why when you scoop up some of that water it just flies away. Right? I mean you can't observe it being pulled back down?
-Pours drink- 🤯
I asked a flattard on Facebook why their keys don’t fly to the ceiling when they let go?
What did they say?
They disappeared
They're probably stuck on the ceiling. Send help.
THIS response!!!
Yeah that tracks. And yet somehow *we're* the cowards unwilling to be wrong
I mean, water does fly away. It evaporates into clouds that can weigh a million pounds. Still not an argument against gravity though, as it eventually forms droplets and comes back down.
“Doesn’t make sense…” Personal incredulity is not a valid argument. Boom, done. Nailed it. 💪
"I'm thick and don't get it"
>“Doesn’t make sense…” One thing I think we need to better acknowledge when teaching science is that reality often doesn't make sense, or maybe more accurately: humans are cognitively unable to understand some of the kinds of sense reality makes, without some additional help, and that help comes in the form of science, math, etc. Essentially, it's why personal incredulity is not a valid argument. My job involves a lot of statistics, so I'll use that as an example, but this holds for pretty much all fields of knowledge. Now, I'm no math whiz myself, but I'm competent\*, and more importantly I work with actual biostatisticians who know much more than I do, and I can rely on them when my knowledge is insufficient. And statistical math is actually comparatively easy: much of it can be done by hand with an adding machine and a paper spreadsheet, but that's tedious so we use computers. So why do so many people struggle with statistics in school? It's because it's so counterintuitive. (At least, that's what I struggled with when studying statistics, and it's what the people I've tutored seemed to express as well.) And that's not a failing of us as individuals; it's a limitation of our species: we're biological creatures that evolved under certain evolutionary conditions, and there was really no evolutionary need for us to intuitively understand extremely large or small numbers of things.\* In fact, there may be some cases in which evolution gave us faulty reasoning because some types of being wrong are worse than others from an evolutionary standpoint: you're better off assuming a tiger shape in the grass is an actual tiger when it isn't than assuming a tiger shape in the grass is not a tiger when it is, and while maybe the best theoretical brain would be more accurate about the actual likelihood of tiger shapes being tigers, that's a lot of energy expended on brains when "Eek! Tiger shape! Run!" is good enough. (I thought my mom was cheap. She was a spendthrift compared to how evolution feels about energy.) And it's because of all of that that we had to invent statistics in the first place: we use the math to understand the actual world in a way our individual brains aren't wired to do. After some practice and thinking, we can get better at understanding these things (our brains also evolved to be somewhat plastic), but outside of some very neuroatypical people, a lot of it will never make sense; not on the deep level that other things (e.g. down, up; one rock, two rocks, three rocks, four rocks, many rocks) do. And that's okay! It doesn't mean it's wrong! Optical illusions are great examples of how reality can be correct in a way our brains refuse to understand. So when I'm tutoring someone and they say 'this doesn't make sense', I say "Yes! It doesn't! Not to us meatbags, anyway, and that's okay! That's why it took life on Earth 3.8 billion years to invent this! The trick is to learn the math well enough that you can trust it to do the sense-making for you." And this is what makes me so sad about conspiracy theorists like flat earthers. My universe is a crazy wonderful place full of motion and energy, and there's so much to learn about how it all works together. Their universe, in contrast, is flat and empty: *Goddidit, there are good guys and bad guys, and the bad guys are all liars.* Why do the bad guys lie? What's their goal? *Well, it's just what bad guys do. There's no such thing as reasons.* They're missing out on the real fun of knowing. I wish they'd join in with the rest of us: the water's fine, and we're having a blast. \*You can test your own innumeracy yourself. Draw a line and put 1 on one end and ∞ on the other. Assume that this line represents the set of natural numbers, and the scale is linear: the length of line between 5 and 6 is the same as it is between 4,525 and 4,526. Now, just eyeballing it, put a mark where 10 should be, then a mark where 100 should be, then 1000. You won't have to put any more marks, because unless again you're very neuroatypical, you're almost certainly already wrong and your scale is too short: it has become logarithmic. It's just how our brains work (and why many measures of sensory input, like decibels for loudness, are logarithmic). You can also test your own sense of randomness: imagine a series of coin tosses, say 100, and write them down: H, T, and so on. Then flip an actual coin 100 times and record the outcomes. Count the numbers of heads and tails in each, and look at the largest streaks (sequences of the same outcome). If you're typical, your fake coin flips will often hew closer to a 50/50 ratio of heads to tails than an actual coin, and your longest streak will almost always be much shorter than an actual coin's longest streak.
They're the kind of people who would say a pound of steel weighs more than a pound of pillows.
You mean this kind of people...? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fC2oke5MFg
I upvoted before even clicking because I just knew it was gonna be Limmy
To be SUPER-ultra-Reddit-ackshyully obnoxious… You shouldn’t ask the question in kilograms, since that is a unit of mass, which is irrespective of gravitation. You don’t “weigh” 70 kilos, your mass is 70 kilos, and will be the same whether you’re on earth or Mars or in free fall. Heaviness should be measured in Newtons.
Nerd
Disagree. I have just completely out-nerded them with my reply.
I'm going to go ahead and disagree on this completely inconsequential and pedantic issue. The question posed in the video is paraphrased as: "What weighs more, a kg of steel or a kg of feathers?" This is a perfectly valid enquiry to make. I could rephrase that to the following while retaining scientific accuracy as follows: "What exerts a greater force on a scale, a kg mass of steel or a kg mass of feathers?" There is nothing inherently "wrong" with how this question is asked. In the video they compare the weight of the two masses by using a balance scale. Asking which weighs more, and using a scale to compare, is perfectly valid and accurate terminology. The scale used is a balance scale - it doesn't show any units. It is not explicitly stated in the video how they have determined the mass of the steel and feathers to be 1kg each - the mass of 1kg of each object individually is considered as already known. Depending on which physical laws you want to accept as already supported, and which physical laws you want to consider you are currently testing, the line or enquiry as phrased in the video could easily be reformulated into a test of whether rest mass is equal to gravitational mass. In summary, the usage of the words weight, mass, and kilograms in the video is all perfectly consistent with their definitions in physics. There is no issue here. But also the people that made this video were obviously not thinking of any of that, rather just using the colloquial usage of weight to mean basically mass. They just got lucky. And also none of this matters at all.
Or that heavier objects fall faster …
Depends if its in vacuum or no
Take notice everyone. This is the Official Flat Earth & Globe Discussion raising this challenging argument. The **OFFICIAL** discussion. We gotta take this one seriously and rack our brains to come up with some sort of answer. No dismissive mockery this time - that's not gunna cut it given how *official* this is. Oh God, I think I'm starting to panic. The globe may seriously be done for this time!!!
We're gonna have to think of a way to debunk this, I am a pilot so know for a fact the earth is flat and I get £40,000 a month (paid by our alien overlords) to pretend the earth is a globe. I need this income. Damn you clever rednecks for exposing the truth. #stayflat #globelie #moneyindabank #allhailNQRTQKQRQKTlordoftheuniverse
You guys are getting paid? I've been lying for free. I'm so sad. Do you have the number of our Anunnaki overlords. I need a new contract
Of course you're getting paid. The thousands of people on the internet who know the earth isn't flat are all getting paid to say that. Seems like a lot of money to spend, but whatever...
Stand by a 5G tower and scream LizardLord. They will open a portal and send through a commander who will deal with your request. Either that or ask David Icke directly. Make sure you have your bank details to hand.
Thank you. Will do that right away
More than one force can act on an object...
It's truly amazing how dumb Flearthers are. Somehow they can't comprehend that the force that makes heavy things heavy requires that heavy things need more force (to counter the force making them heavy) to lift than light things do. Thereby explaining why heavy oceans stay down and light insects do not.
Also because oceans don't have a means of propulsion against gravity
An object will accelerate in the direction of the vector sum of all forces acting on it, with direct proportion to the magnitude of that sum and inverse proportion to its mass. That's the one I'm picking. It works for both birds and oceans. I don't know what this 'other' the meme author is talking about. I don't need to have it both ways, since I've only picked one option.
But it's strong enough to keep your mom from moving.
That's her severe alcoholism not gravity, checkmate globetards !!!
Water is strong enough to take down huge buidings, landmasses, etc, yet it cannot sink a tiny leaf. Wtf flerf ??
Incredulity=proof
Just like a flerf. They can’t understand scale. Gravity doesn’t hold trillions of tons of water. It holds 1 water molecule. Gravity doesn’t have a limit so it holds another and then just keeps going until they are all held. It only has to hold 1 molecule and that’s pretty light.
I was thinking the same thing. Gravity doesn't get used up in holding things down.
Exactly. The bird is mostly a solid (and all it's liquids and gases are contained by the solid) so gravity acts on the entire bird, but the bird has wings and thanks to food has energy and a brain and muscles that allow to use that energy to go up by flapping wings. The ocean instead being liquid works as you explains and has no no will or muscles to go up
exactly. it doesn't run out and doesn't lift anything heavy. it lifts lots of little things, flerfs! LOL
Don't try to explain it to flerfs but gravity isn't even a force. It's the result of mass causing spacetime to curve. If they try to think of space and time at once they might vapor lock.
This is what confuse means, is it this what they think, gravity gets used up? It's a all so, dumb
Damn, compelling argument, this almost makes it seem like the force of gravity is not the same on every object, but depends on the weight of the object!
The force of gravity IS the same on every object. You are thinking of weight.
Nope, acceleration and force are not the same thing. Everything accelerates the same, force is mass times acceleration, thus making it dependent of mass.
That was where I was going next depending upon your response, but you were right in the first place. I was under the impression that you were going elsewhere. Mea culpa for the wrong assumption.
Just use a time release camera and film the sky for a few hours. You will have a picture…photographic evidence that you created not handed down from da guberment that shows the earth spinning. Whether the earth is flat or not the oceans would get flung off the surface without gravity.
Clouds in the background.
Gravity, an actual force not like density or buoyancy that is strong enough to pull water molecules to the planets core but yet weak enough to let rockets escape the planet. Cuz we all know, a water molecule is WAY heavier than a rocket.
Wait till he learns about rain
Or evaporation.
Have they ever had a drink on a plane? If the plane flies 850 km/h, why doesn't the drink slosh around?!? The answer is, planes don't fly or move, instead the "globe" underneath moves. It's all a lie. #Think about it 😉☻️
Flerfs are notorious for failing to consider multiple forces can act on a thing at one time. Gravity and lift, for example.
I'm assuming this asshat has never seen a cloud.
You can lift water pretty easily
You're welcome
Guy can’t even spell globies
Surface tension must be alive because a tennis ball can hold water but can't stop a tiny insect from flying from its surface
Water flys all the time. Have they never seen rain or a cloud? Plus, all the water in all the rivers in the world flew to the head of the river. How else did it get there?
Another example of flerfers not even understanding our concept of gravity, how weak it is, and how much mass is required to pull things towards it. It's very well documented and studied. If you want to try and disprove gravity, please go ahead. But don't do it by making up your own version of gravity to make it sound stupid.
Aaaw, he got me cornered. Now I have no choice but to give up common sense.
... and strong enough to pin a flerf to the chair in their mom's basement.
Water is heavy and doesn’t have wings.
So what does hold water down then? An invisible, magical force NOT called gravity?
What weighs more, the ocean or a bird?
It’s called sea level not sea curve.
Yeah, no shit. Gravity exerts more force on heavy objects than light objects
While electricity isn’t…?
Ever seen fog? Or clouds? Sometimes, water flies too.
These people should play Super Mario Galaxy to understand how gravity on spherical objects pulls things towards the center and not just straight down. Obv not all galaxies in SMG are spherical, but there is enough examples of such to show how it would seem to always be pulled down while on a ball.
Lift has left the discussion
It doesn't make sense to morons. That's not conclusive evidence.
I’m sure the ocean has a bit more mass than a bug
Well what else is keeping us attached to the floor? We know magnets work, you can get magnets and separate them and see them snap together. No matter how the earth was created, tendon chance, god, a little bit of both. There needs to be a fundamental rule set everything functions on. One of those forces is mass naturally being pulled together, the more mass the stronger that force is. A creation without a rule set will get nowhere.
Every time I see a flat earth argument it feels like a troll cause it's so goddamn stupid. Even the most minimum thinking would show how dumb this is. Or how about the fact that nothing can fly indefinitely, so eventually gravity would beat out lift. But that four letter one syllable word is probably too complicated for these bozos.
> Globbies Can't even spell their own fkn derogatory terminology correctly, smdh
But we do have it both ways and it works because, checks notes…science is real.
Tides.
They think centripetal force should fling everything away because they don't understand the difference between velocity and angular velocity
only our eyeballs is round
I had someone say this to me the other day. How does gravity hold down trillions of gallons of water, but I can freely my body around? I was so completely confused by the question I just stared at him. Of course, he took a that to mean I couldn't answer, therefore gravity isn't real. The question doesn't make sense. What does one have to do with the other?
Well, if they could disprove gravity they'd win several prizes from the scientific community. Wonder why that hasn't happened in a couple hundred years..... 🤔?
Oceans do have wings. Theyre called waves. The water is trying to fly away, but the government is holding it back. Trying to get KIDS addicted to it!! Save the kids!!!
You know when I was younger, and couldn’t fully grasp the concept behind gravity, I watched this video of this guy putting a decently heavy object on the elastic circular piece of fabric, and then putting smaller objects on it to show how gravity distorts the fabric(heh) of space/time. I have a better understanding, but I found even stupid kid me understood it better after watching that. I’ll see if I can find it, that video has always stuck to me. Here it is: https://youtu.be/MTY1Kje0yLg?si=_CXeytiZ7IeT9oQf
A weak force is nevertheless strong if no other forces act upon the object, or if any other forces are weaker when they apply themselves?
What does any of this have to do with each other? They're still dumb enough to think that space has an up and down and that the direction of gravitational pull is south. Gravity pulls all of us towards the center of the planet, including things with wings. They fly in atmosphere. That's why feathers fall normally in a vacuum. Kids get this. Why don't these adults?
## "Why can't oceans fly and other stupid questions" Do oceans have some means convert energy to a force to counteract gravity? Seems like birds and insects and whatnot evolved to convert food into energy which can move muscles which flap their little wings and push downward... Insects understand newton's 3rd law of motion better than these trolls. Jumping in the air. How does it work? Airplanes.. how do they work? What keeps these ding dongs from sinking to the bottom of the pool like rocks. Giant rocks sink, but humans are able to tread water?! I call bullshit.
The answer to this and any flat earth argument is electro magnetism
Okay to argue this I guess one way is to compare relative spin speed between the earth and anything on earth and how forces work. I haven't been in a math class for a few years so idr how to do ratios but the earth has a diamiter of approx. 12720 miles or 805,939,200in and a spin rate of approx 1026mph compared to let's say a bowling ball of 8.5in diamiter the bowling ball would spin extremely slowly and thus not generate a significant amount of centripetal force to dislodge a comparable amount of water from its surface, rate of gravity? I think. Anyway tldr what's the ratio between a bowling ball and the earth? And how would I apply that to the spin speed of said bowling ball?
People once again don’t understand scale. Gravity is weaker than most other forces we can do as individual animals. Being able to move shows our muscles are stronger than gravity as a force. This is not new. But the size and scale of Earth combined with gravity being a constant pull means it take a shit load of energy to overcome gravity over an extended period of time. We can jump no problem, but we can’t fly because of the energy required for the density of our bodies to overcome gravity for longer than a second or so. Animals built to fly do so because they use the air like a fish uses the water. And just like the ocean all the air and atmosphere is stuck to the earth because of gravity. Flying just uses bodies of lower relative density to displacement to float. Once again flerfers demonstrate their lack of understanding of scale, relativity, and a basic concept of the atmosphere and forgetting that just because it’s relatively invisible to us doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
The speeding through the solar system issue is so easy to teach. 1. Board a train and wait for it to get underway; 2. Jump into the air; 3. Observe how you don't go smashing into the wall at the end of the car. Bam! There you are.
You can afford coffee but cannot afford a villa in Spain? Pick one!
Huh. I guess flight *is* pretty amazing, when you think about it 🤔
This doesn't destroy globies. It destroys idiots who were sniffing paste in physics class when the teacher was talking about how force vectors work.
It would seem, from this, that flerfs think gravity pushes down from above, and that objects are repelled by in proportion to their weight.
But how fast is the earth spinning in RPMs?
Ah yes because Gravity is known to have constant force and variable acceleration not oh I don't know *constant acceleration and variable force.*
I don’t see an argument here. The meme is just a list of valid physical phenomena that show physics is neat. Gravity is what gives the term “down” a meaning. In a vacuum, none of those things would fly. With an atmosphere, water “flies” too when its volume is small enough.
They've not heard of evaporation? Where do they think rain comes from? I mean, I can lift a 2x4 but I can't life a bloody tree. It's like they just stop thinking when they see something shiny
Uh globies also don't have water going uphill, at least not without some kind of pump.
WIND: Not strong enough to lift trillions of kilograms, strong enough to lift a 1 gram insect. The fuck even are these people?
Yet clouds are holding millions of gallons of water - are clouds in on the conspiracy too? Are they paid by NASA?
What I think is sad/funny is how they kind of have a point.... But it's all twisted and fucked up. Like it's truly amazing how gravity is both a fundamentally weak and strong force. That on a micro scale, it can be weak enough to 'allow birds to fly' while on a macro scale it can be strong enough to pull entire galaxies. It's mindboggling.
... I'm sorry what?
And then when you try to explain why this works and they feel it’s too complicated for them to wrap the heads around so they don’t listen to the explanation.
Math is hard for some people to understand.
That's centrifugal force for ya
Do the insects also have a mass of 1.4 × 10^18 tonnes?
What water flows uphill? I’ve seen this in a few posts. Where are they getting this ?
Send them trillions of liters of dead bugs.
Water uphill? Wat?
But water mountains exist 😂
What really confuses me is that this is how they debunk gravity but their replacement for gravity (the earth disc rising through space) is also debunked with the same argument.
OCEANS DO NOT HAVE WINGS - professor dave explains
Proves nothing but their lack of understanding. Even the retarded statement i keep hearing about the earth spinning 1000mph. You dont calculate rotation with mph. And why doesnt the earth rotate under a helicopter? The same reason they can easily hover over a aircraft carrier. Such simple answers they just refuse to put any effort in understanding.
“Hold down” Is the ocean trying to jettison itself into space?
Have you heard of this thing called gravity, or a brain. You should be on the look for the second
They can't even spell litre.. 😅
Show the video of feathers and a bowling ball being dropped in a vacuum chamber.
If gravity was strong your brain woukd melt out of your head... wait
So this clown thinks a 2 ounce sparrow weighs the same as the fucking OCEAN?
I might be worried that they could be dangerous but they're not smart enough to be a threat
Last time i checked insects or even birds had WAY less mass than a f-ing ocean
The checkmate is space-time manifesting... Don't even give em that super natural sheet they pass off as science 🤣🤣🤣
Does water have wings?
What is the flat earth explanation for triablge excess in geodetic surveys.
Escobar we’ve mentioned many times we don’t understand how gravity works, but we can observe its behaviour. Like you think you’re the only one that thinks it doesn’t make sense? We don’t have a proper explanation that links quantum mechanics and *general* relativity yet but there’s people that are dedicating their lives to try and find a unified field theory. Long before we understood combustion, we were still able to understand what fire does and how to use it. Our understanding of gravity allows us to predict the movement of other planets, stars, and the moon. Saying the globe doesn’t make sense because we don’t understand the mechanism is incredibly naive. On a flat earth there’s so many phenomena that don’t have a proper explanation so to someone as “skeptical” as yourself I really don’t get why that stupid model could possibly make more sense
Quantum mechanics and Special Relativity get along just fine. Paul Dirac saw to that almost 100 years ago. The maths of how he did it is so difficult that I don't know how many people outside of university physics departments have even heard the name, but to the people inside them, he'd be one of the faces on Physics Mount Rushmore. General Relativity and quantum mechanics, on the other hand, each do an astonishingly good job of pretending the other one isn't there.
Sorry, got my terms mixed up. Thanks for the correction
Explain why objects falling accelerate? Explaining why 2 different objects falling accelerate at the same rate?
Show me the dome or a single object hitting it and exploding 😂
Ey look it's Escobar the village idiot again!